Re SS: Where is this guy wrong?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by tim_duncan2000, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    This makes sense to me. What am I missing?
     
  2. Huckleburry
    Offline

    Huckleburry Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    285
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +20
    While privatizing social security is a nice idea it has yet to work in country that has tried it. Chile (whose system we use as an example) is still paying billions of dollars to their elderly because of mismanged funds. Social Security is actually pretty efficient if it is allowed to work. The problem is that it gets raided to pay for other things.
    Cheers
    Huck
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Oh crap--we get to hear the old Gore mantra of "lock box " :cry:
     
  4. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    Here is the "lock box" or "intergenerational trust" argument which does bring up the good question of how exactly are we going to pay for the huge baby boomer group which may not be helped a whole lot by the new privatization? I don't think the boomer problem is a reason NOT to start the privatization - SS is going to be in the red only 13 years from now (2018) anyway. It's just too bad that the privatization didn't get started about 30 years ago for this big group which will probably have a negative effect on our national economy when it hits the fan.

     
  5. sagegirl
    Offline

    sagegirl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    515
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +42
    Huck, I agree completely, the fact that SS has been raided to pay for alot of other programs (just like the airport tax that Reagan locked up to offset spending , if you fly, you pay this tax and the funds are being lent out) SS could be self sustaining and serve its purpose.
    The congress plays a deceptive smoke and mirrors game of making some program look less costly in the first place by taxing in some other area to get the funds to "loan" to sustain it....alot of this is pork barrel stuff, government contracts, esp military, they know if they spew enough crap that it gets so thick there is no way to do a legitmate accounting. The new budget stinks...it is almost 500 Billion dollars over expected revenues, it is a increase in spending of over 8 per cent, and doesnt include the cost of war in iraq....absolutely no credibility..... it does include cuts in medicad, amtrak, some education grants, farming subsidies, and IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY REVENUES PUT TOWARD THE COST OF PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY. and he is still going to cut the deficit in half????????? The contradictions are all over the place. You really cant have it all. I think Bush would do well to come clean on the fiscal thing.
     

Share This Page